Some San Francisco activists are gathering signatures in an effort to ban the custom of circumcision of male infant babies in the in the Bay area. If San Francisco passes this measure, it will be setting pace to become the most nannified city in the Union by following up their recent ban on Happy Meals in the city late last year.
“It’s excruciatingly painful and permanently damaging surgery that’s forced on men when they’re at their weakest and most vulnerable,” Says Lloyd Schofeld, a supporter of the ban. I will go out on a limb here, but I’d put as much money as I could borrow to bet Schofeld and the others behind this movement are liberal Democrats. What’s Ironic about this is that liberal Democrats are the most ardent proponents of abortion; a practice which also permanently damages (death by dismemberment) human beings when they are at their weakest and most vulnerable.
So I ask, what is the difference? If mothers are permitted to abort their babies at will, which in fact kills them; why is there a movement afoot to prevent mothers from “permanently damaging” their children through circumcision? What happened to a woman’s right to choose what’s best for her family? What happened to “keep your laws off my body”? What happened to the “right to privacy”? I find it awfully convenient these “rights” vanish when liberals know how to better care for your children than you.
All things considered, I don’t give this movement any legs even if it passes. It would likely be struck down on Constitutional grounds by restricting the freedom to practice one’s religion. Most circumcisions are performed for cosmetic reasons. But many Jews and Christians view the practice as being in-line with their religious doctrines.
But then again, liberalism transcends religious freedom, doesn’t it.
Sifting Reality 
This proposed ballot initiative is not about abortion, it’s about forced circumcision on male minors. Stick to the issue, please.
Are you saying that parents can do ANYTHING to their child in the name of religion? Could I cut off the earlobes of my child if my religion required it? What about female genital mutilation (FGM), which is completely illegal in the United States regardless of religious customs? Are you saying you support FGM? This ballot initiative is about religious freedom of the child himself. Your religion ends at somebody else’s body.
Just because something originates in San Francisco does not mean it is necessarily a liberal Democrat idea. I, myself, am a moderate. So tell me, how much money could you borrow for that bet? I’ll be happy to take it off your hands.
Let me explain a little something. Since I am the author of this, and it is my page, everything contained within the commentary is by definition “on topic”. I see a direct ideological contradiction when liberals (and yes, these are both liberal ideologies) oppose circumcision at the will of the mother because it is some injustice to her son; but champion dismembering and killing at the will of the mother her son to be a protected and funded practice. Oh, and the untimate irony…”Your religion ends at somebody else’s body.” What about those dismembered bodies abortion produces? Those bodies were someone elses.
Second, I did not say ANYTHING could be done to one’s child in the name of religion. But nice try. Circumcision has been both a religious and secular practice for thousands of years. In this country, though anecdotal isolated problems can occur, it is a very safe procedure. Since your name above suggests you are close with the movement, perhaps you could discover Schofield’s political affiliation and share it with the class.
This is just an FYI. You obviously did not submit a valid email address (email@email.com). Any further comments without a valid email will be considered spam. Next time you comment, don’t hide, my name is John Barron. If you think your convictions are true and just, stand up for them. Put your name behind what you say. Don’t cower behind anonymity, I post under my real name and my views can be highly controversial, but you know what, I stand for what I believe, and I put my name to my words.
If it’s a “direct ideological contradiction” to support a woman’s right to choose but oppose circumcision, isn’t it just as much of a direct ideological contradiction to oppose abortion but champion the forced cutting of an infant’s penis as a protected and funded practice? Sounds hypocritical to me.
Ideologically, one should either oppose both or support both. As a moderate like Ballot Initiative Volunteer, I oppose both abortion and forced circumcision.
Might I add that I find it interesting that abortion opponents also oppose social services that help children, oppose health care that keeps children healthy, and oppose school funding that educates children. That’s not just hypocritical, it’s sad.
No, it is not a contradiction to support male circumcision. I do not look at circumcision as a barbaric act reminiscent of the dark ages as some form of unjust mutilation. That’s why it is not a contradiction. If I looked at circumcision in that way, then yes I would be inconsistent to be overlooking one form of barbarism while condemning another.
One should only oppose both if they view circumcision in the way I described above. But when it is recognized as a relatively harmless religious practice, and an overwhelmingly medically uncomplicated procedure with no lasting ill effects, then no, one need not oppose it anymore than another “cosmetic” surgery.
That last bit you made up. You coming in here and lying is more sad than the false information.